So, it sounds like safe harbor was upheld all around, but the case got tossed back to district so Viacom could fish for evidence that YouTube was "willfully bli

So, it sounds like safe harbor was upheld all around, but the case got tossed back to district so Viacom could fish for evidence that YouTube was "willfully blind" to infringement (that is, "a deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge") despite having no obligation to police content, only an obligation to respond to DMCA notices. Also that courts didn't decide how syndication fits into the story. The article doesn't explore it either. Did I miss anything?